''You've Made
Mistress Very, Very Angry': Displeasure and Pleasure in Media
Representations of BDSM'

Particip@tions Volume 4, Issue 1 (May 2007)

''You've Made Mistress Very, Very Angry': Displeasure and Pleasure
in Media Representations of BDSM'

Abstract

It has long
been a convention of mainstream Western filmmaking to characterise
the fetishist, the sadomasochist and the dominatrix if not as
psychopaths, at least as individuals with self-destructive
obsessions or behaviours that are dangerous to society. These
so-called ‘perverts’ and their practices are also lampooned
regularly in the mass media and continue to be narrative short-cuts
in situation comedies, advertisements and so forth, stereotypes
there partly to represent and fix the maladjusted sexual deviant
living in ‘normal’ society. This paper considers some of these
stereotypes from an alternative viewpoint, that of the BDSM
community in Britain, based on a questionnaire conducted during May
2006. Since the range of practices that go to make up this
lifestyle are predominantly based upon implied or fantasy narratives
and vivid stereotypes, it seems appropriate to propose that pleasure
may be drawn by the fetish and BDSM communities from their
representation in the cinema.

Despite an
evident softening of public opinion towards the alternative
lifestyles of BDSM and fetishism, traditional representations of the
community and its practices have helped to fix a collection of
stereotypical characters and scenarios in the public imagination.
For a vast range of practices, it is represented by a restricted
collection of signs and character types, some of which I shall
explore below. Similarly, the costumes and props of the stereotyped
fetishist or the sadomasochist, predominantly PVC, rubber or leather
outfits, whips or floggers, savage high heels and gimp-masks, are
incorporated into mainstream movies, advertising and music videos as
a sign of the highly sexualised or dangerous man or woman, Michelle
Pfeiffer’s Catwoman,[1]
or the cast of Madonna’s ‘Erotica’ music video[2]
for example. Certainly, a common construction of the villain in
mainstream Western filmmaking has been that of the sadist, a
character with implied ‘perversions,’ such as homosexuality,
transsexuality, confused sexuality, a suspension fetish or a history
of child abuse, who draws pleasure of a kind from the infliction of
pain or even the death of a vulnerable victim.

Consider, for
example, Soviet double-agent and torture expert Rosa Klebb (Lotte
Lenya), of From Russia with
Love,[3]
whose dour expression, military uniform and masculine hairstyle
construct a dyke stereotype, and who wields a metal knuckle-duster
to test the strength of recruits. Her connoted lesbian sexuality
inevitably becomes associated with her expertise in sadistic
torture. Famke Janssen’s performance as Xenia Onatopp in another
Bond incarnation, Golden Eye,[4]
takes sadistic pleasure to new heights. Her particular fetish is
murder, gasping in orgasmic delight whilst asphyxiating a man with
her thighs, or becoming sexually aroused whilst indiscriminately
machine-gunning the staff of a satellite control centre. Think
also of the long-running television situation comedy, Allo Allo!,[5]
with the light-hearted sadomasochistic relationship between Herr
Flick (Richard Gibson) and his secretary, Helga (Kim Hartmann), who
wears suspenders beneath her uniform. Herr Flick himself is seen
wearing stockings and suspenders in at least two episodes. His
full-length leather coat, clipped German accent and strict demeanor
send his submissive employee into paroxysms of erotic anticipation
that are repeatedly postponed, only serving to intensify her
excitement or, at times, exasperation. These characters are comic
constructions of the sadist and masochist; the comic mode is
frequently the arena for these character types, creating a gaze that
makes them, to adapt Mulvey’s phrase, to-be-laughed-at.

Another
television example is the popular Monty Python’s Flying Circus
sketch, ‘Blackmail,’[6]
which features Michael Palin as a gameshow host presenting a game
called ‘Stop the Film,’ extorting money from an unnamed gentleman
who is secretly filmed visiting a dominatrix. In the sketch a
flickery, hand-held 8mm film is shown of the man secretly visiting a
suburban home, in Thames Ditton to be precise, whilst a sum of money
rapidly increases on the screen. The gentleman in question is
encouraged to telephone the studio to prevent the revelation of his
identity, which he does, just as the dominatrix brandishes a
flogger. The sketch works to both to ridicule the practice of
sadomasochism and to expose the hidden perversions of the middle
class. The Monty Python team was no stranger to giving fetishes a
comic turn; even cross-dressing and transsexual desire figures in
‘The Lumberjack Song’: ‘I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
suspendies, and a bra. I wish I’d been a girlie, just like my dear
Papa.’[7]
The enthusiastic lumberjack is rejected by the rugged male chorus
and his sweetheart, since his urge to wear women’s clothing and to
‘hang around in bars’ insinuates a perceived ‘perversion,’ namely
homosexuality. With core Python team member Graham Chapman being an
openly gay man, the goal of the sketch is clearly not to demonise
homosexuality, rather it is to expose prejudice and enjoy a
stereotype, to laugh at and draw pleasure from the happy confession
of a man who likes to wear women’s clothes. There is a suggestion
in the sketch that it is good, therefore, to laugh at oneself and to
pander to the stereotype. It is this potential enjoyment of the
sexual pervert stereotype that I wish to explore in this article,
pondering on the positive – as well as the negative – receptions of
common constructions of the sadomasochist, from which this select
minority might gain pleasure.

This article
does not aim to expand upon the history of BDSM, nor on the writings
of the Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. What is
important to emphasise, however, is that BDSM (Bondage, Discipline
and Sadomasochism) is not a lifestyle or routine founded on the
infliction and reception of pain, although this might be an element
of some people’s practices; it might instead be regarded as
‘pseudo-violence’ if at all. As Anita Phillips puts it, ‘[…] S/M
practices are nothing like real violence […]. In consensual sado-masochism
the idea is to control pain for sexual purposes, to stop when it
goes beyond that limit. To equate the two is like comparing traffic
noise to a sonata.’[8]
Phillips implies here that all sadomasochism (or S/M) involves pain,
which is misleading, but her comment encourages a re-consideration
of the kind of intention behind the practice. In fact, much that is
practiced in this lifestyle is along a binary relationship of
dominant and submissive, character roles if you like, that are
played out by practitioners. It may include pain, it may include
sex, but certainly not always. There are those that indulge in
practices such as genital torture and needle play, whilst there are
many whose fetish involves the worshipping of feet or the wearing of
rubber. Whilst there is a general consensus that fetishism and BDSM
are different spheres of practice, there is a large crossover in
costume and behaviours that tends to draw them together into the
same community. Many individuals are in long-term, monogamous
relationships, many are not. This community is, in fact, little
different in its sexual identities than the world at large, and what
they practice takes place in private at home as much as in dedicated
club-environments. Ironically, the BDSM community itself celebrates
stereotyping, to a degree, in the roles that individuals assume, the
strict, immovable dominant, the obedient submissive who must be
punished, and so forth. These stereotypes are closely linked to
fantasy scenarios, narratives even, that are played out for the
pleasure of all involved. They are usually, however, far removed
from the scenarios typically found in the cinema that involve
sadists and masochists.

I am indebted
to the individuals from within the BDSM and fetish ‘scenes’ in the
UK that I contacted via my questionnaire, many of whom provided very
honest and carefully considered comments on how their lifestyle is
represented in the media and on public perceptions of BDSM. I will
be referring to a number of these responses throughout the article.
The questionnaire was open, uncomplicated and anonymous and was
devised to encourage as much candid honesty as possible through four
questions:

Please list films or television
dramas/comedies that you have seen which feature a
sadomasochistic / fetish story or character.

In your own words, please describe
your response to the representations found in these films and TV
shows. Did you find them pleasurable, offensive, faithful,
misinformed, misleading, humourous, etc.?

Please list films or television
dramas/comedies that you have seen which seem to feature
sadomasochistic / fetish imagery, costume, etc., but which DO
NOT have a story concerning the scene or the lifestyles
associated with it.

In your own words, please describe
your response to the representations found in these films and TV
shows. Did you find them pleasurable, offensive, faithful,
misinformed, misleading, humourous, etc.?

I received
responses on a range of films, TV programmes, advertisements and
general public opinion towards BDSM from a total of 25 individuals.
Out of these, nine were female submissives, four were female
dominants (or ‘Dommes’), four were male submissives and six were
male dominants. The remaining two were ‘switch,’ or ‘omniviant’[9]
BDSM practitioners who enjoy expressing both a dominant and a
submissive side in their behaviours. The diversity found in the
community is reflected in the range of opinions expressed, but
certain common agreements are evident that are explored below,
together with textual analysis of some of the items discussed.

The Four
Principal BDSM Stereotypes in the Media

There are, I
believe, four key stereotypes that are part of a public
consciousness or assumption, deriving principally from the
sensational media, particularly tabloid newspapers. I have labeled
them as: the Mature Dominatrix,[10]
the Young Male Sub, the Vamp Dominatrix and the Public Authority
Male Sub. The male dominant and the female submissive are not
commonly found in the sensational media. As one male dominant wrote
in response to the questionnaire: ‘It’s okay to be a female
Dominatrix, but if it’s a male then it’s an advantage-taking pig-man
of a misogynistic chauvinist.’ Certainly, contemporary perceptions
of gender and gender-relations are such that the dominant male and
the submissive female go against common sensibilities. I explore
some examples of these in mainstream cinema later in the article.

One common
media stereotype, then, the Mature Dominatrix, is a sexually
voracious older woman, probably upwards of forty years old, dressed
in PVC, with high heels, red lips and wielding a flogger or a riding
crop. She is not truly sadistic, she is not genuinely harmful,
rather she is a comic character who tends to be found in situation
comedies and advertising. Since so many stereotypes operate as
binary oppositions, the partner of the Mature Dominatrix is the
Young, Male Sub. He is, in comparison to his Mistress, slim or even
‘weedy,’ naïve and impressionable. He is the perfect submissive
partner to the Mature Dominatrix who is dominant in age, appetite
and experience. An example of the Mature Dominatrix and Young Male
Sub can be found in the ‘Keep Britain Tidy’ advertising campaign
presented in cinemas in December 2005, developed to target the 18-24
year old cinema-goer, in which the mature dominant woman punishes a
young man for dropping litter, brought to my attention by a female
submissive.[11]

A young male
walks along a suburban street that has been ‘dressed’ to appear
obviously artificial with large false flowers and strips of bright
green turf in the gardens. He absent-mindedly throws litter onto
the pavement as the soundtrack plays a light-hearted melody
reminiscent of the Carry On and Confessions Of series
of films, cheeky British comedies of the 1960s and ‘70s regarded
today with a mixture of nostalgic affection and politically correct
repugnance. As he passes a house, cheekily numbered 69, he is lured
from an upper window by a blonde Mature Dominatrix in a low-cut
blouse, fishnets, PVC skirt, thigh-high boots and heavily applied
make-up. Her presence on screen is accompanied by a brief shift to
a calypso beat, signifying, with her costume, a cheeky, trashy
glamour. Once inside the house, which is gaudily decorated, filled
with porcelain ornaments and featuring one long, phallic cactus, the
dominatrix orders him to strip, then dresses him in a rubber
gimpsuit, complete with full-head mask and dog chain. She dons a
short faux-fur coat and thenceforth takes him ‘for a walk,’ forcing
him onto all fours and making him put litter into a bin. Once his
punishment is over, he is released from his chain and sent off
running down the street, still in his rubber outfit. As the
advertisement ends, the Mature Dominatrix spies another young man
dropping litter, and the tagline ‘Don’t be a gimp,’ with the Keep
Britain Tidy logo, appears over a rippled, black rubber background.

The scenario,
for the older viewer at least, may bring to mind the Monty Python
‘Blackmail’ sketch mentioned above. Both the Python sketch and the
Keep Britain Tidy advertisement incorporate a dominatrix who entices
men into her suburban home, lending a certain middle-class identity
to the stereotype. A second resemblance, for those who remember
her, is to the British Madam Cynthia Payne, whose sex parties at her
home in Streatham, South London, brought her fame, nationwide
affection and notoriety in the late 1970s and ’80s. It is through
true-life characters such as Payne that the Mature Dominatrix
stereotype has become fixed in the public imagination. Instead of
seeming dangerous she is regarded with fondness, much as Payne
herself has been over the last thirty years. She plays the role of
the kinky Madam, she is not by any means a true sadist, whatever
that label may connote.

The Vamp
Dominatrix, the younger, truly dangerous ‘Miss Whiplash’ is the most
common of the four stereotypes. She will tend to be devastatingly
attractive, often in full-body PVC suits and thigh-length boots with
six inch heels. She is far more extreme in her behaviours than the
Mature Dominatrix, and although she also has comic associations, she
is much more sadistic. The Vamp Dominatrix is often sensationalised
in the tabloids with her partner in the binary relationship, the
Public Authority Male Sub. As one male submissive wrote to me,
because of media stereotypes: ‘most […] people see BDSM as women in
latex whipping rich, professional men.’ These rich, professional
men will often be mature, possibly overweight, frequently from the
legal or political professions, dressed in underwear or leather
posing-pouch, stockings and a ball-gag or gimp mask. The
conventional scenario finds the Public Authority Male Sub seeking
discipline and punishment from the Vamp Dominatrix as an outlet or
escape from his position of power in society – a typical power
exchange, or PE as the BDSM community has referred to it.

An example of
this partnership can be found in another recent advertisement, this
time from Friends of the Earth as part of their ‘The Big Ask’
campaign. The short viral movie, called ‘Sticky Question,’ has an
elderly cleaner in a hotel walking in on a Vamp Dominatrix who is
punishing a Public Authority Male Sub.[12]
The hotel room, naturally, is number 169, with the first digit
hanging down. The male is tied to a four-poster bed with a satsuma
in his mouth, the slim, young, PVC-clad Vamp Dominatrix standing
over him with a red suede flogger telling him ‘You’ve made Mistress
very, very angry.’ The cleaner is played by the British comic
actress Bella Emberg, a virtual fixture of television comedy in the
UK since the 1960s, principally in the shows of Benny Hill and Russ
Abbot. She enters the room and launches into a verbal attack on the
man who, it turns out, is her local MP, about not involving himself
in issues of global climate change. Like most advertising, the
length of the piece demands fast assumptions to be made and so makes
use of the implied narrative that attaches itself to these
stereotypes and, like the Keep Britain Tidy advertisement, this BDSM
scenario is presented in a comic mode, encouraging laughter at the
MP caught in such a scandalous situation. The message, however, is
that his lack of action on climate change is more scandalous than
his secret liaisons in hotel rooms. It did not escape the attention
of the female submissive who commented on this advertisement to me
that it has an uncomfortable association with the Conservative MP
Stephen Milligan, who was found dead in his home on 7th
February 1994, in stockings and suspenders, an orange segment in his
mouth, and an electrical flex holding a black bin liner over his
head. It is partly from such news stories as this that the Public
Authority Male Sub stereotype hails. The implied narrative that is
already known by the viewer of the advertisement is that the Public
Authority Male Sub seeks, and can afford, release or relief from his
professional duties in our society. Like the stereotypical Young
Male Sub of the Keep Britain Tidy narrative, the irony is that he is
genuinely guilty and deserves punishment.

The viral
movie, the short movie designed specifically to be consumed on the
internet, has the same imperatives as the advertisement, and a large
number of commercial businesses now use the viral movie for this
purpose (the viral ad). Like the conventional advertisement, the
viral movie must communicate information quickly and so the use of
stereotypes is abundant, as are the employment of a comic mode and
the appeal of sex. One of the first viral ads to become
internationally popular was the Agent Provocateur campaign, in which
Kylie Minogue rode a bucking bronco wearing only underwear – a less
likely choice for a television advertisement. A recent viral ad
released by Mates, the condom manufacturer, makes full use of the
sex ‘appeal,’ but also public perceptions of BDSM and fetish
stereotypes.[13]
The narrative, like the Friends of the Earth movie, is located in a
hotel, the stereotypical setting for secret and kinky liaisons.
Four couples in separate rooms are shown indulging in their
particular fetish: a Domme in PVC with a young man, a doctor and
nurse, a scantily clad gentleman applying strawberries and cream to
his partner, and a plushophile couple[14]
dressed as rabbits with a briefcase of large carrots. Each couple
is young, good-looking and heterosexual. Their kinky games are
interrupted by the shaking of chandeliers and sounds of sexual
intercourse taking place in another room. Overcome by curiosity,
the four couples venture along the red corridor to the room from
which the sounds are emitting and knock on the door, only to find
that a straight, conventional couple is having fantastic, fulfilling
sex. Better sex, in fact, than that which has been interrupted
amongst the fetishists. A tagline explains why this is; the couple
has been using the new Mates ‘Intensify’ range of condoms and
lubricants, implying that they do not have to artificially ‘spice
up’ their love-life with ‘perversions’ in order to have great sex.
The narrative ends with the rabbits walking sadly back along the
corridor, one discarding a carrot over his shoulder. The ad is
clearly aimed at the viewer who will relate to the ‘normal’
heterosexual couple, referred to as ‘vanilla’ in the BDSM community,
and who will regard the fetishists and BDSMers as ‘other,’
not-normal, perverted, to-be-laughed-at. Its message is based upon
an assumption that such people must resort to these perversions
because their sex-life is lacking in some way, all communicated
instantly through stereotypes.

Interestingly,
the comic constructions of the BDSM participant found in the
advertisements I have outlined, as well as that of a Vamp Dominatrix
in the recent on-line Mini advertisements,[15]
do not seem to cause offense amongst those in the BDSM scene.
Rather they are appreciated for their comic potential. One female
dominant wrote that they ‘depict BDSM as perfectly normal and
natural while milking the humour.’ A female submissive argued: ‘Why
should we not laugh at ourselves, just like everyone else does? It
is funny to see a cleaning lady being more dominant than a
Domme!’ Perhaps, then, there is a case for the proposal that
pleasure can be gained from even the most stereotypical
representations of the BDSM scene.

Responding
to the Stereotypes on the Screen

Out of the
four stereotypes found in familiar perceptions of BDSM, only the
Vamp Dominatrix is commonly found in feature-length movies. One
memorable example of the overt use of the stereotype is in the Mel
Gibson movie Payback,[16]
in which Lucy Liu plays Mistress Pearl, a Vamp Dominatrix who takes
her job very seriously and who has implied links to the Chinese
Mafia. Despite her vicious sadism, her presence in the film is as
comic relief to some of the more serious narrative events. A brief
appearance of the Vamp Dominatrix appears also in Mr. and Mrs.
Smith,[17]
with Angelina Jolie as an assassin who dons the Domme’s typical
outfit for a kill. This overt stereotype, however, is much rarer
than covert encodings of the Vamp Dominatrix. What I mean by this
is the contemporary construction of the femme fatale and of
the dark, dangerous woman who bears the visual signifiers of the
dominatrix, principally in her costume. I have already mentioned
Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, but other examples include Halle
Berry’s incarnation of the same character,[18]
Kate Beckinsale in the Underworld films[19]
and Geena Davies’s alter-ego in The Long Kiss Goodnight.[20]
Black leather, PVC and rubber are used as signifiers of power, of
carefully-honed violent potential, accentuating, as these materials
do, the shape of the woman’s body. This costume is also, clearly,
an erotic signifier, encouraging a gaze at the dangerous female.
She may even, as in the case of Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, wield a whip, a
stock prop in the construction of the S/M scenario. Although these
characters are not in themselves Vamp Dominatrices, they carry the
associations of the dominatrix through their costume and, to an
extent, their attitude.

This visual
reference is just as common in male characters, principally vampyric
or monstrous villains or dark superheroes such as those found in the
Batman films,[21]
the Blade films,[22]Van Helsing,[23]
the X-Men films[24]
and even Terence Stamp in Superman II.[25]Much of the fetish ‘look’ of these characters, both male and
female, owes a lot to the comic books and graphic novels from which
many are derived. The look, and even behaviours, of BDSM and the
fetish culture seem evident in many examples in this form of
story-telling. A female submissive, when describing her response to
such films asked: ‘Were the artists [of graphic novels] interested
in BDSM and drawing their ideals, or has fetish clothing drawn from
teenage fantasy images?’ It is an interesting question; which came
first, the gothic, fetishist images of the graphic novel or the
distinctive costuming of the BDSM community? I will not be dealing
with this particular question here, but the respondent’s personal
feeling was that ‘The costume and imagery link with a perception of
a kinkier, darker sensuality that is now part of our
consciousness.’ She is recognising the look of these films as
signifiers of something menacing yet erotic, something that suggests
that which is forbidden yet desired, the territory of the dark
anti-hero. She believes that we understand these signifiers
implicitly; they have entered the schemata that we employ to
interpret the narrative media.

As far as some
within the BDSM community are concerned, a lot of pleasure is taken
in the viewing of these images on screen, with several replies to my
questionnaire expressing a fondness for the latex or leather outfits
of certain superheroes. Some clearly recognised the dominant
ideology that allows the dark superhero success in his/her goal,
whilst the sadomasochist must be restricted or punished. As one
male submissive wrote:

These [the
heroic characters] are often better than truly sadomasochistic
characters, as one can enjoy the costume and the attitude of the
characters without the expectation of their come-uppance. A great
example is Jennifer Garner in Alias: she looks like a Domme,
she acts (sometimes) like a Domme, but because she is doing it for
duty rather than sexual pleasure, she is permitted to succeed.

She is not, in
other words, a sexual pervert as perceived by the public. She is a
powerful, highly sexualised female stereotype, the contemporary
femme fatale, but without sin and therefore without punishment.
The conventional femme fatale, the archetype found notably in
post-war Hollywood, had access, as Janey Place puts it, to ‘her own
sexuality (and thus to men’s) and the power that this access
unlocked.’[26]
She is aware of and employs the power of her own sexuality, in
tandem with another form of law-breaking, usually a crime of some
kind such as theft, adultery or murder. In the patriarchal order,
in which the sexually independent woman is a threat, this ‘dark’
woman is punished, often even killed, for her transgressions. One
contemporary rendition of the femme fatale, identified here
as a covert version of the Vamp Dominatrix, diverts her power and
energy into laudable goals, such as the saving of humankind or the
fighting of crime. The external signs of the powerful woman in this
character are not accompanied by ‘wrongdoing,’ so unlike the
traditional femme fatale, she is not punished.

The apparent
popularity of this character construction, and of the female
dominant generally, was considered by one of the male dominants who
responded to the questionnaire. Starting from a position that the
media is a male-dominated ‘market,’ he writes: ‘there is a natural
need to feed that market. And what with? Imagery of the breast so
fondly suckled.’ Fascination with the powerful woman, he believes,
is down to ‘male-mothering fantasies.’ He asks:

Who is the
person in the male’s formative years, that administers most
punishments, physical or emotional? Mommy. Who is the person who
administers most of the cuddles, of lovey-icky stuff? Again Mommy.
[…] Mommy is the one we need to feel proud of us, as we mature into
work-drone.

This response
reveals a particular understanding of heterosexual male fantasy,
that it revolves around what psychoanalysis might describe as a
pre-Oedipal desire for Mother. The Vamp Dominatrix fulfils the role
of punishing mother, and her presence in the media, whether overtly
as a sadist character or covertly as the powerful, sexualised woman,
might suggest that, indeed, she serves a widespread male fantasy.
However, as the same respondent went on to note, she is celebrated
by female performers, such as Madonna’s recent live show in which
she re-enacted pony play on stage with four young men in reins.
This kind of construction of the Vamp Dominatrix implies an
embracing of the stereotype and the power it lends to the woman
herself. Although there is not space here to investigate this, a
feminist analysis of the female celebration of this stereotype
should be conducted.

It is worth
noting that, like any social grouping which negotiates or subverts
the meaning of a film text, the S/M viewer is likely to draw
S/M-related pleasure from mainstream films that have no overt BDSM
imagery or characters. A female submissive wrote to me:

For me, many
seemingly innocent films and scenes sexually arouse me in a BDSM
way, because the character is dominant. For example Sharpe
doesn’t have any overt images that I can think of (other than the
bull whip in the latest one) but conveys far more to me than Lady
Chatterley’s Lover ever could because the character is so
strong.

What she
describes as ‘innocent films’ that offer pleasure were affirmed by
other respondents who listed films such as The Sound of Music,[27]All About Eve,[28]Doctor Zhivago[29]
and Gone with the Wind,[30]
none of which have deliberate BDSM imagery nor even the slightest
hint of ‘kinky’ sex. This corresponds to Bill Thompson’s review of
research conducted into S/M practices, in which Gone with the
Wind, horror films and pirate scenes are listed as films that
first aroused participants at an early age.[31]
One respondent to my questionnaire wrote that the pleasure is a
response to ‘combinations of power and desire,’ concluding that she
could see ‘what I need or want to see within a film.’ Another, a
male sub, wondered if the reason he is attracted to certain
domination / submission scenarios in historical films is because D/S
is something inherent in class systems. The implied role of many
submissives is, after all, that of the servant, or even the slave,
who is punished for failure to fulfill duties appropriately for the
Master or Mistress. This power dynamic is something that is
re-enacted in many D/S behaviours. It might not seem strange then
that a BDSM viewer of a film not directly representing the lifestyle
should discover this dynamic at work.

Returning to
stereotypes, the four key characters that I have listed so far are
rare in mainstream cinema, being the material instead of
advertisements, TV comedies and tabloid newspapers. Vivid
representations of sadomasochists do, however, exist in cinema, some
of which are important to mention because of the implications they
present for a public perception of a person with such tendencies. I
will highlight two examples, one sadist and one masochist.

The Sadist
Psychopath

David Lynch’s
neo-noir critique of small-town America, Blue Velvet,[32]
incorporates the Sadist Psychopath in the person of Frank, performed
by Dennis Hopper. He is a violent, intelligent criminal whose
sadistic behaviours are predominantly directed at a night-club
singer, Dorothy (Isabella Rosselini). She is instructed to call him
‘Daddy,’ she is not permitted to look him in the eye, but is forced
to spread her legs in front of him while he breaths through an
oxygen mask and repeats ‘Baby wants to fuck.’ She is beaten and
abused by him, taunted by scissors, raped, and forced to humiliate
herself. Frank’s hold over Dorothy is ostensibly his kidnapping of
her husband and son, but she, as a Masochist Victim, evidently gains
pleasure from his violent, sexual treatment. The Masochist Victim
is a complex character who I will not explore in depth here.
However, both Dorothy and Frank are constructed as perverts, with
leanings toward mental illness, acting as representatives of a
perverted underworld that is ultimately resisted by Jeffrey (Kyle
MacLachlan), the young man who becomes involved in their violent
relationship. Interestingly, when Dorothy is alone with Jeffrey she
becomes dominant, a testament to the complexity of this type in some
narratives, forcing him to undress, threatening to stab him if he
touches her while she performs fellatio on him. She is, in a term
adopted by the BDSM community, ‘topping from the bottom,’
instructing him how to treat her sadistically, particularly when she
begs him to beat her. It is also evident that Jeffrey is aroused,
despite his horror at her instructions. Although he hits Dorothy at
one stage, he does also ask the question ‘Why are there people like
Frank?’ Despite Jeffrey’s underlying attraction to this behaviour,
he is eventually ‘saved’ from that lifestyle by the end of the
movie.

Because it is
part of our society’s dominant ideology to regard domestic and
sexual violence as repellant, these scenes in the film are
uncomfortable to watch. Dorothy and Frank are most certainly
sadistic and masochistic characters of the highest degree. Dorothy,
as a Masochist Victim, is particularly alien, at once pitiful and
abhorrent as she takes pleasure from vicious treatment. An equation
of their behaviour to that of the everyday sadomasochist is,
logically speaking, likely to create a perception of the lifestyle
as dedicated to real violence and the result of mental illness.
Hopper’s character, particularly, is one that drew comment from some
of the respondents to my questionnaire, a female sadomasochist
writing:

Hopper is
certainly a lead that you never forget, all that sucking and
grunting. I didn’t find it sexy, as it seemed to have an element of
psychological thriller. […] It didn’t repulse me as such, rather
left me feeling very much as if I was an observer and would never be
a participant.

What I feel is
important about this response is that the individual acknowledges a
certain seductive quality to the dominant sadist, as does Dorothy in
the film, but she feels distanced from it, recognising it as a
movie-construction and not a representation of the real world. It
would be difficult to ascertain whether a viewer who is not a BDSM
practitioner would distinguish so clearly between the two, and would
no doubt be down to the individual’s knowledge of the BDSM lifestyle
and sophistication as a film viewer. One of the male dominants
wrote in his response that this type ‘is always depicted as
violent.’ He raises a recent episode of Wire in the Blood as
an example,[33]
in which, ‘The female “victim(s)” have to die, so that we can live
happily in the knowledge that Male Dominants are evil, but Female
ones sexy.’ In the episode in question, a serial killer is found to
be a sadist who lures his female victims into an existence of
isolation and suffering, a sensationalised version of the ‘Gorean’
lifestyle (a strongly patriarchal brand of BDSM), before murdering
them. It is this popular image of the male dominant, as ‘mad, bad
and dangerous to know,’ that is regarded as ‘such a shame’ by a
number of people involved in the BDSM community.

The Sadist
Psychopath stereotype can be found in a variety of mainstream films,
examples being The Cell,[34]Dead Ringers,[35]
and the Japanese film Audition.[36]
One might even suggest that Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten) in
Hitchcock’s 1943 thriller Shadow of a Doubt assumes the
Sadist Psychopath role. In almost every case the character’s
activities are sexually-related and linked to abuse or mental
illness, and thus help to consolidate a negative stereotype of the
sadist. What is fascinating, however, is that although the
characters themselves may be regarded as repulsive by the S/M
viewer, their practices are sometimes not. Several wrote to me that
they found certain scenes enjoyable in terms of their fantasy
potential, such as being locked in a glass cage and being regularly
doused with water, the ‘gleam’ of gynaecological instruments, even
the helplessness of the victim of gang-rape. There is a clear
distinction that is being made in these responses between the movie,
real experience and personal fantasy, a distinction that is not
particularly encouraged by the representations found in the media.

The
Self-Harming Masochist

The second
stereotype that I want to highlight is the Self-Harming Masochist, a
key example being Lee in the 2002 movie Secretary, directed
by Steven Shainberg and based on a short story by American writer
Mary Gaitskill. Lee, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, is a young woman
struggling to overcome a nervous breakdown, a stint in a mental
institution and a habit of self-harming. When she begins a job as a
secretary she enters an S/M relationship with her boss, Edward Grey,
played by James Spader, an actor who is no stranger to characters
with sensational sexual proclivities. Edward teaches Lee how to
cease self-harming and embrace consensual sadomasochistic play,
particularly the power exchange practiced by some practitioners of
the BDSM lifestyle in which a submissive allows a dominant to take
responsibility for his / her choices in mundane daily life, such as
remaining in a seat for a length of time, or eating just four peas
with one’s dinner.

The viewer is
encouraged to identify with Lee, and to enjoy her journey towards
liberation and love, ending in a heterosexual pairing and marriage
to Edward. The sadomasochist, so frequently the pervert or villain,
is reconstructed as a protagonist. Neither character suffers the
usual punishment for their perversion, and thus the perversion
itself is reconstructed as acceptable, except that Lee has a
history of mental instability and self-harming.

This film drew
more responses than any other in my research, and the comments are
most interesting. One Domme wondered if it was appropriate for a
dominant character to conduct S/M practices with a woman he knew to
have a history of mental illness. A male submissive also wrote that
the film seemed to say:

[…] to be into
anything kinky you had to have some mental illness first. This is
really disappointing for me as it completely misrepresents what BDSM
is all about. You don’t have to be ill to recognise / desire a
different form of power exchange in a relationship!

A female sub
felt that: ‘As a completely non-abused natural born sub, I wasn’t
very happy about her cutting herself,’ whilst a male dominant
disagreed, stating that it was good to see a self-harmer have a
‘happy ending.’ This may reflect an awareness in the respondent
that the mentally ill individual (as many self-harmers are regarded)
has just as much of a right to engage in BDSM as anyone else.
Clearly, some S/M viewers were unhappy about this representation of
their lifestyle, whilst others saw it positively. However, even
more importantly, a number of individuals made the vital point that
one should not regard the film as a representation of reality. One
male dominant wrote: ‘it was a piece of fiction with a BDSM theme,
much as The Da Vinci Code is a religious fiction.’ Another
female submissive agreed, stating dryly:

Why some folk
feel the need to compare it to their lifestyle I don’t know. It’s a
work of fiction...The Oompa Loompas who live down my street didn’t
complain about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...they saw
it as a piece of cinema, that was that.

Behind the scorn, there is
a sophisticated acceptance here that mainstream cinema may well have
little to do with everyday realities, and no offence is taken at the
skewed representations found of the BDSM community. A male dominant
expressed a similar response, writing: ‘I guess I tend to find most
representations of BDSM in the films I’ve seen generally inoffensive
and when noticed, usually humourous (probably due to inaccuracy).’
In this case it would appear that humour is derived from the
impression that the filmmakers are misinformed about the BDSM
scene. Unfortunately, the construction and consumption of
stereotypes is such that some viewers do accept mainstream
representations as authentic, and so attitudes towards certain
social groupings are likely to be informed by cinema. In fact, this
likelihood was referred to by two of the respondents. A
professional Domme wrote about her personal response to Pier Paolo
Pasolini’s Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma / Salo, or the 120
Days of Sodom (1975), the film that notoriously led to the
closing down of the Old Compton cinema club in 1977 after being
screened in full without a BBFC certificate. The film is a
political interpretation of the Marquis de Sade’s novel 120 Days
of Sodom, transposed to wartime fascist Italy, depicting the
kidnap, sadistic torture and murder of nine teenagers by a group of
libertines. The film contains scenes of rape, sodomy, the eating of
excrement and mutilation, and only received an official
classification as ‘18’ from the BBFC in 2000. By this time it was
understood by the BBFC that ‘[a]lthough
the film contained many disturbing scenes, the Board agreed that its
intention was to deliberately shock and appall audiences at the evil
of fascism and to vividly illustrate the idea that “absolute power
corrupts absolutely”‘.[37]
In response to her viewing of the film, the Domme wrote:

The film is
disturbing in the extreme even for the most hardened sadomasochists.
Everything shown within the film has an isolated political reasoning
but the film is so shocking that if I had seen this before my
journey had begun then I’m certain it would never have started.

The writer is
recognising here that the content of this particular film might have
affected her attitude towards the practices of sadomasochism before
becoming involved in the ‘scene,’ but the confession is based upon
an understanding that the quotidian behaviours of the S/M community,
with which she is very familiar, are vastly different from those
found within the film.

The same male
submissive who discussed his responses to Secretary, also
pondered the effects of sensational media representations of BDSM,
feeling that there was a deliberate ‘skewing’ of the ‘scene’ to
affect the public’s perception. He felt that, although certain uses
and abuses of the female form in the media are still common, as soon
as a titillating story of a celebrity’s kinky habits hits the
headlines, it is instantly a tale of ‘Miss Whiplash.’ He commented:

I feel that
for people who are coming into the scene or trapped in vanilla
relationships, we use media representations to inform our choices.
For a long time, I felt this was a bad thing to get into; actually
‘hurting’ someone must be bad. Now I understand it (better) this is
just so far from the reality!

The
individual’s view of ‘vanilla’ aside, there is a belief here that
the media are used to gauge potential lifestyle choices, BDSM in
particular, as either ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Because of the broad
availability of the mass media, it is proposed here that people are
most likely to go to these channels of communication for
information, where BDSM is consistently constructed as a moral
issue. The effect of media images is a hotly contended issue, but
certainly this opinion expresses a conviction that BDSM is not
represented with fidelity in these mainstream forms. Although S/M
is a lifestyle and set of practices gradually becoming more socially
acceptable in some quarters, it remains enigmatic, it continues to
be categorised as ‘seedy’ and ‘perverse,’ and so retains a
sensational reputation. Like sex, sadomasochism sells.

Secretary,
as a film that ostensibly embraces S/M by placing practitioners as
its protagonists, appears, but for this very reason fails, to make
efforts towards de-sensationalising the lifestyle, constructing its
characters as everyday people with ‘normal’ needs such as a loving
relationship. One of the means by which this is attempted is by the
incorporation of heterosexual romantic closure. In her list of
complaints about the movie, a female dominant wrote:

Wedding bells,
conventional happy ever after: I object to that ‘normalization’ of
BDSM, of trying to legitimize it by making it look as similar to
vanilla as possible: ‘No worries, masochist subbie girls, all they
want is married suburban bliss, […] BDSM is just another way of
aspiring at tying the knot.’ The long ‘romantic’ end in the movie
put me off big time.

The resistance
of ‘normal’ that is articulated here is expressive of many of the
comments that I received. To have the BDSM lifestyle packaged as
normal runs against self-perceptions in this community: there is an
evident and active confrontation with conventional,
socially-acceptable, routine living. There is a celebration of
‘otherness’ and difference as much as might be found in any sub- or
counter-culture. Herein lies an interesting paradox: whilst the
respondents to the questionnaire consistently observed a large gap
between the real lifestyle of BDSMers and what is found on the
screen, one that emphasises the not-normal nature of BDSM, there is
a simultaneous desire to be regarded as not-normal. Although a
specific sensationalism is attached to the lifestyle in the media,
and is rejected by many in the S/M community, its members celebrate
their reputation in society as singular and bizarre. It would
appear, then, that it is a particular brand of non-normalcy that is
aspired to, one that does not equate to the narratives and
stereotypes commonly found in mainstream film.

Opinions on
the resolution of Secretary were not of one accord, however.
Another female dominant wrote that, ‘[i]t was a kind of fairy
story. It managed to romanticise something which is often portrayed
as ‘sick’ and I greatly appreciated that intention.’ This
alternative interpretation shows gratitude to the filmmakers for
producing a film that overtly contradicts common constructions of
sadomasochists, such as those found in Blue Velvet or The
Cell, in which these individuals are mentally ill. The fact
that Lee is a self-harmer is not an issue for this viewer, nor that
the film is not a faithful representation of the everyday. What is
important to her is that the characters are allowed the level of
normalcy that was rejected by the more critical female dominant.

The presence
of the Self-Harming Masochist in Secretary contributes to a
certain sensational construction of S/M which, despite the trite
heterosexual resolution, succeeds in correlating the lifestyle with
mental illness. The same stereotype is found in an even more
extreme incarnation in the French film The Piano Teacher,[38]
in which the title character, Erika (Isabelle Huppert), attempts to
escape her restrictive lifestyle and domineering mother through a
sadomasochistic relationship with a student. Erika is a dichotomy
of sexual naivety and obsession, visiting adult shops during the day
and viewing pornography in private booths while holding the used
tissues of previous clients to her face. Despite an initial
revulsion at her requests to be beaten and humiliated, the student,
Walter (Benoît Magimel), enacts an attack on Erika that leaves her
either shocked and disgusted at herself and her perverse desires, or
deeply fulfilled, depending on one’s interpretation of the scene.
Both her self-harming habit and her desire to be beaten and
humiliated appear to be efforts to control her own life, but at no
stage does she appear to achieve this goal. Erika’s final
masochistic act is the self-harming scenario taken to its furthest
extreme, suicide by stabbing her own chest with a kitchen knife.
Like her other self-harming episode, which takes place privately in
her bathroom, this act is played out alone in the empty foyer of a
music hall. No-one observes this final performance of defiance to a
man who has rejected her because of her ‘perverse’ desires, and she
leaves the venue and walks off-screen, presumably to die in
solitude. Her self-harming habit, her consumption of pornography
whilst smelling used tissues, her suicide, and the fact that her
father had died previously in a mental institution, together imply
that she has a mental illness. Specifically, and in accord with
Secretary, an association of masochism to self-harming helps to
reiterate a perception of the masochist as mentally ill.

Dark, Scary
Stuff

Why is it then
that the characters of the Sadist Psychopath and the Self-harming
Masochist have become typical representatives of the S/M lifestyle?
Their capacity to shock is, in all likelihood, an attractive appeal
for the filmmaker, but what lies beneath the construction of BDSM as
something genuinely dangerous? What is so appealing about this
world to mainstream audiences? Is there, perhaps, a ‘safe’ distance
found in consuming these narratives on screen that prevents a direct
involvement yet allows erotic titillation for the viewer? No doubt
much can be attributed to the media scandals generated by the deaths
of public figures such as Stephen Milligan and Michael Hutchence,
and television documentaries about the ‘seedy underworld’ of
sadomasochism. According to one female submissive, however,
perceptions of BDSM as morally ‘wrong’ or perilous come from an
association of its practices with real violence. She wrote:

One of the
problems (for mainstreamers) with BDSM is that practices and
activities often refer to dark, scary stuff, using bondage, pain,
fear and even terror as fantasy and sexual fuel. Of course, often
these references have a basis in something that in its origin was
anything but sexy (think about real torture) - but in the same way
that we understand horror films as thrilling, representations of
bondage, pain and fear, etc., […] can also be understood as sexy (or
aesthetically interesting) by mainstreamers.

It is the
‘dark, scary stuff’ that is role-played by sadomasochists that
repels and is evaluated as wrong. Ideologically, even morally,
speaking, the games played in the S/M community seem to be regarded
as real bondage, real pain, real terror, even real torture. These
practices, as the female sub notes, are not in themselves erotic,
but terrifying. She goes on, however, to suggest that the same kind
of appeal generated by the horror film is at work in BDSM’s
re-enactment of scenarios of physical and mental domination and
submission. The thrill that is engendered, she believes, is one
that is potentially attractive, even ‘sexy,’ for the mainstream
viewer. What is at stake here is an understanding of the viewer’s
response to on-screen narratives as much as of BDSM behaviour. The
latter is both a real practice, and a not-real re-enactment of
fantasy scenarios. The horror film’s narrative is both a reference
to real horrific possibilities (depending on the particular
narrative), and a not-real fantasy construction on a screen. It is
in the real possibilities of BDSM and horror films that the
participant or viewer draws such pleasure; it is in the assurance of
its artificiality that the individual knows him/herself to be ‘safe’
from genuine threat. Perhaps this is possible because of the
discernment of the viewer, who may effectively differentiate between
the two. As Bill Thompson puts it in his investigation into
sadomasochism: ‘Knowing what real violence is, the general public
can easily tell the difference between “kinky” people who like to
dress up for sex, and the “sickoes” who violently force their wishes
upon others.’[39]
The problem comes when we realise that what constitutes ‘kinky’ and
‘sick’ is subjective, and so even the distance of cinema cannot
prevent a moral judgement upon both the act itself and the act of
watching.

Responses to
Secretary, as I have noted, were mixed, but several made the
point that the film goes some way to showing the ‘vanilla’ viewer
something of the intimacy and respect that goes into many BDSM
practices. Another film which attempts to depict the lifestyle of
the contemporary BDSMer is the British comedy Preaching to the
Perverted,[40]
the movie-flagship of BDSM in the UK, which tells the story of Tanya
Cheex (Guinevere Turner). Tanya is a Vamp Dominatrix who is taken
to court for her practices which are regarded as actual bodily harm,
being a topical response to the notorious Spanner Case of 1990-91.
Real-life members of the BDSM community were involved in many of the
scenes in the film, and their input was significant in the
construction of the BDSM club-environment and practices. The young
man sent to incriminate Tanya, Peter (Christien Anholt), is a
Christian who is gradually drawn into the world of BDSM. Working
his way into Tanya’s affections, Peter discovers that her darkest
fantasy is in fact ‘vanilla’ sex, which she indulges in just once
whilst wearing a white wedding dress. The movie concludes with the
birth of their child, and Peter wearing PVC trousers as he cradles
the baby.

Although the
film represents the BDSM club-scene with an unusual level of
authenticity, many individuals commented that they were greatly
disappointed with the narrative, principally because they felt that
Tanya Cheex ‘submits’ to a vanilla lifestyle. She represents a
fissure in the durability of the Dominatrix, a stereotype that is
celebrated in the BDSM community. It is worth noting that Tanya
does not fully embrace a ‘normal’ lifestyle, as she tells Peter not
to expect any regular vanilla sex despite them having a child
together, and she continues with her BDSM practices. It is in fact
Peter that is the most changed by the end of the narrative.
However, in addition to this, the comic mode of the film was not
enjoyed by at least one respondent who replied that it was ‘too
nudge-nudge-wink-wink, with its Carry On... references’. The
film features such British comedians as Ricky Tomlinson, Sue
Johnston, Roger Lloyd-Pack and Keith Allen, and overtly constructs
characters, particularly submissives, as to-be-laughed-at. The kind
of cheeky humour typical of the Carry On films, its ‘giggling
naughtiness,’[41]
went out of fashion with the British public in the late 1970s, so to
use this mode of comedy in a representation of an explicit set of
sado-masochistic behaviours, then, may not sit well with
practitioners of BDSM today. Whatever the reason, however, this
particular respondent was not the only person to express
dissatisfaction with the film. One male sub wrote, after a verdict
on Secretary’s resolution as ‘crap,’ ‘I’m still more fond of
it [Secretary] than the awful Preaching to the Perverted.’

A multitude of
other film and television examples could be explored, such as
Quills,[42]The Night Porter,[43]
David Cronenberg’s Crash,[44]Story of O,[45]
Almodóvar’s Tie me Up! Tie me Down!,[46]
and certain episodes of CSI[47]
and Sugar Rush,[48]
but few of these were discussed at any length by the respondents to
the questionnaire. Instead I shall conclude with a proposition that
S/M viewers of mainstream cinema see little relationship between
many of the stereotypical characters designed to represent the
sadomasochist and themselves, and are frustrated by the implications
of mental illness or psychopathy that are regularly made. However,
many have the maturity and sophistication to recognise the
consistent gap between mainstream film and everyday existence. They
often seem to respond positively to many of the fantasy scenarios
constructed that include S/M practices on the screen. They also
draw a great deal of pleasure from mainstream cinema that has
nothing ostensibly to do with sadomasochism, but which involves a
dynamic of domination and submission between characters. I would
like to end with a quotation from a Domme in London which expresses
a desire for mainstream representation in keeping with revised
treatments now given to other social groupings, such as the gay
community or ethnic populations: ‘I’m looking forward to a BDSm[49]
film in the future that is not a joke, a freak circus, and that
doesn’t attempt to explain or legitimize itself, especially in terms
of “accepted normality”. It will come.’

[6]
Episode 18,
‘Live from the Grill-o-Mat’, Series 2, first broadcast by the
BBC on October 27th 1970;
also included in the Monty Python film, And Now for
Something Completely Different (Ian McNaughton, 1971).

[7]Episode 9,
Series 1, first broadcast by the BBC on 14th
December 1969.

[9]Omniviant is
a conjunction of omni and deviant, and is used to
identify an individual who enacts both domination and
submission either simultaneously or at separate times.

[10]
The word ‘Dominatrix’ is less common in the BDSM scene than
it is in the media and is part of the fixing of the
stereotype herself. More frequently used are the terms ‘fem
dom’ (female dominant) or Domme (pronounced ‘Dommay’ by
some). The term ‘Dom’ is often used for male dominant.

[14]
Plushophile
is the name given to the individual with a fetish for
stuffed toys, cuddly toys, teddies, etc., and who may also
dress in a furry / ‘plushie’ costume.

[15]MINI Canada
site, URL http://www.neverinneutral.com/dominatrix/ A
PVC-clad Vamp Dominatrix demonstrates the remarkable
‘control’ of the Mini with a selection of floggers, paddles
and whips. (visited 18th November 2006).

Jenny Barrett
is the Programme Leader for Film Studies at Edge Hill University,
Lancashire, where her teaching includes identities in the cinema,
gender, sexuality and censorship. She is continuing her research
into the field of BDSM representations with a view to further
publications in the future.